Endogenous Retroviruses and Evolution

In doginess retroviruses are sequences of genetic information which are believed by many and scientific community to become inserted into the genomes, a various life forms, in the very distant past. Viral DNA may be as small as a few hundred base pairs in length, or it may be as many as 3000 base pairs in length. Whereas the human genome is over 3 billion base pairs in length. To demonstrate how small a virus is, the image you see here is an e-coli-bacteria cell being attacked by numerous viruses. Proponents of evolution theory claimed that many sequences of genetic information found in many life forms are viral DNA which has become inserted in their genomes or the genome of their ancestors during the history of that organism's evolution. They use this as evidence to support their evolution in the theme, but are we to believe that a pig, for example, is related to a zebrafish, or a human being to a clogged frog, or a rat to a green monkey, or a cow to a clogged frog. Evolutionists rely on many assumptions to support their theory, and one of them is related to what are called endogenous retroviruses. What a critical analysis of this idea reveals it to be an unsupportable assumption. For example, purple sea urchins, shared genetic sequences with slime mold, are we to believe that purple sea urchins are related to slime mold. At the same time, human beings share 7,000 genes with the California purple sea urchin. According to the Human Genome Project, human beings have 22 to 25,000 genes in the gene. Thousands genes constitute nearly one third of the entire number of genes in a human gene, but are we one third like California purple sea urchins because of genetic similarity? Are we structurally alike in our design? Or biochimically, are we so similar that we should share one third of our genome with California purple sea urchins? Something's very dramatically wrong with this picture. Some viruses are single-celled organisms. Others have no cell. Is it reasonable to believe that the DNA of a virus could possess critical genetic information necessary for the development and function of a vastly more complex multisagular organism, which has billions of specialized cells in intercellular systems? To see how greater an assumption this is on part of the evolutionists consider the following fact. 14 of the 98,000 human ERVs are in the same location in the human genome as they are in the chimpanzee genome. Considering the relative lengths of their genomes, chimpanzees have more DNA than human being. This represents 0.0014 percent of human ERVs. However this means also that 99.9986 percent of human ERVs are not in the same location in the human genome as in the chimpanzee genome. Could it be possible that because these nucleotides are the same in a sequence they may have different genetic information? But genetics has revealed to us that we can find the sequence of nucleotides in one organism and find that same sequence of nucleotides in the genome or another. And yet these two sequences will represent entirely different information just because two sequences in two different life forms can be found which have the same arrangement of nucleotides in order does not mean the information is the same for both kinds of life. Likewise because we can find the same arrangement of nucleotides in the DNA of a virus and that's pretty rare. Does not mean that the information we find in the genome of a human being which is the same arrangement of nucleotides represents the same information as you will learn in this video. Based upon their assumption the genetic similarity is evidence of ancestor evolutionists claim that 8 to 10 percent of the entire human genome is comprised of retroviral cells that is the information from the genome of a virus which has become inserted in man's ancestors and has been passed on to this day by evolution. But argument beings actually 8 to 10 percent virus clearly not. Are we to believe that the development of human beings vastly more complex multicellular organisms with intercellular systems could be critically dependent upon the information found in the genome of a virus. This is clearly an unsupportable assumption. For example evolutionists believe that human and chimpanzee DNA is 80 something percent similar. Actually evolutionists claim it's much more than this more like 90 percent. There are methods of determining genetic similarity or in fact erroneous. The similarity is closer to 87 percent. However, we seem to by the same standards the 28 percent genetically similar to a California purple searerge in fact we share 7,000 of our estimated 22 to 25,000 genetic sequences with colorful, duperpacy urges. But our human beings structurally work biochemically like a California purple searerge. So then how is it safe to assume that we are structurally biochemically alike the chimpanzee because we are 87 percent genetically similar. By the way 80 percent of the proteins in chimpanzees are different by at least one of an acid from those found in chimpanzees. This is an insurmountable problem for evolution theory. Furthermore evolutionists believe that the entire human genome is 8 percent viral DNA. Something's dramatically wrong with this picture. For example, if a sequence of information found in human beings happens to be the same arrangement of nucleotides as those found in a virus does not mean that the information they represent is the same. In the human being the information they clove for let's say function D. But in the virus for function T, here we see that genetic similarity is not evidence of ancestry. And the arrangement of nucleotides in a given order does not mean that the information they represent is the same between two different kinds of life. Another problem for the evolutionists claim that ERVs are viral DNA which has been inserted into the genomes of various creatures and passed on through ancestry because of their relatedness. It's the PTERV1 genetic sequence. This sequence is found in the recess monkey and the African great apes. But it's not present to human beings. The evolutionists believe that chimpanzees, gorillas and the recess monkey are all related to man. If this were so, the PTERV1 genetic sequence should be present in the ones. This demonstrates that the evolutionists claim that these sequences of genetic information are not actually viral DNA. They are merely similar sequences of nucleotides found in various kinds of life. This because we find a particular arrangement of nucleotides and a sequence in one kind of life and another does not mean the information they represent is the same and it does not indicate ancestral variety between them. It could also be that the common designer used various bits of code in different kinds of life because it was good engineering to do so. Just as a computer programmer, they used snippets of code in one program and another. The entire ERV claim evolutionists has come under high scrutiny of fate. He amongst evolutionists scientists. For example, John, 2005 states, several lines of evidence indicate that chimpanzee and gorilla PTERV1 copies arose from an endogenous source. First there is virtually no overlap, less than 4%. Between the location of insertion along chimpanzee, gorilla, a cac, babu, making it unlikely that endogenous copies existed in a common ancestor and then became subsequently deleted in the human lineage and orangutan names. Second, the PTERV1 phylogenetic tree is inconsistent with the general accepted species to refer primates, suggesting horizontal transmission as opposed to a vertical transmission from a common A-pensist. An alternative explanation may be that the primate phylogeny is grossly incorrect, as has been proposed by a minority of anthropologists. Here we see that the imagined lineage between man and ape is thrown into question by the fact that the PTERV1 endogenous retrovirus does not exist in the genome of human beings. And so they are seeking an alternative for their imagined phylogeny tree because of the evidence. The hemagetome project reported, we report the existence of 51,197 ERV derived for motor sequences that initiate transcription within the human genome, including 1,743 cases where transposition is initiated from ERV sequences that are located in gene, proximal promoter, or 5 on translated retails. Our analysis revealed that the retroviral secretes and human genome encode tens of thousands of active promoters transcribed ERV sequences correspond to 1.16% of the human genome sequence and PET tags that capture transcripts initiated from ERVs cover 22.4% of the genome. So ask yourself, is it reasonable to believe that the DNA of viruses could possess the genetic information necessary to promote and regulate so many genetic functions, so many biochemical functions, and so many morphological designs and human beings. So detrimental is the genetic evidence against ERVs today that would refering to the evolutions that form a claim of junk DNA which is now debunked and retroviruses, Linda woke up molecular biologist has stated, the molecular taxonomists who have been drawing up evolutionary histories, also known as phylogeny. For nearly every kind of life, we are going to have to undo all their years of junk DNA based historical reconstructions and wait for the full implications to emerge before they try again. This supposedly viral DNA sequences perform many critical functions in human beings and other kinds of life. They are capable of playing hopscotch around the human genome for example. They can be cut and paste into a new location, a target location, specifying by specific genetic information, or they may be copied and paste into a new location. What are labelled ERV sequences can be read from the DNA molecule by a molecular machine called transcriptase and produced as an RNA molecule. They may also be reverse transcribed by molecular machine known as reverse transcriptase and coded into the DNA. This rises a number of important questions. Firstly, we are the information for reverse transcription to transpose ERV's come from, unless it is already programmed into the genome of the life-forming question. And how could ERVs integrate themselves to become critical to so many functions specific to so many life forms? Specifically, since these life forms so greatly vary biochemically and more morphologically. And also, how could the genome of a virus possess the information critical to the biochemical functions and morphologies of organisms which are incomparably more complex than its host? Now you may be asking yourself, what's the problem? We know that viral DNA can turn the cell into a factory to reproduce the cell and become inserted into the genome of a person. Are these true? But ask yourself this. Is it reasonable to believe that these little snippets of code to possess the complex information necessary to regulate human embryonic development to produce a human being in its embryonic development stage or produce human proteins? The obvious answer is no. ERVs are known to regulate the genes of the human being to develop it during embryonic development. What's interesting is that the cell is known to be a human being. It's about a dozen pages long and all of its instructions are specific to the light meter. They give instructions on how to use it and care for it. Now here is a King James Bible. Let's imagine that this Bible is information pertinent to another kind of machinery. And it possesses hundreds of pages. It's reasonable to believe that the information found in this light meter's manual. Just a dozen pages or so, all of the information specific to the light meter itself could possess the complex specified information necessary to regulate all these hundreds of pages of information. So I used to produce this book. The answer is clearly known. Now it would be no problem for an intelligent designer to design a small package of information which provides specific instructions on how to utilize a much greater body of information. This is exactly what computer programmers do. But again is it reasonable to believe that the instructions in the DNA of a virus which regulate only a virus or telehost how to manufacture it could possibly possess the complex specified information on how to develop a human being. Because it is a known fact that the information in these supposed ERV sequences do just that. They are critical information necessary for the regulation of thousands of human genes so as to develop all the morphological structures and biochemical processes even human proteins to produce a human being. What are we to conclude then? Well it's quite clear. These supposed ERV sequences claim to be evidence of ancestry between the various kinds of life or no such thing. There are snippets of code or common designer used because it is good engineering to do so. Our specific to various organisms not to any generic organism that highly specific so as to produce specific life forms by regulating gene expression. Now why do evolutionists therefore put forth this assumption? Because to an evolutionist any similarity is evidence of evolution and of course because they want so desperately for you to believe in evolution. Because the alternative to them is completely unacceptable. They absolutely refused to believe that life was designed which it so clearly was as modern science has clearly demonstrated. They have blinders. They absolutely refuse to consider even their own assumptions in light of modern scientific knowledge. Instead of throwing out their former claim they will claim to it tooth and nail. But science will remove them as it has been doing so as it did with many hoaxed ancestors of man in the past as it has not with the claim of junk DNA and many other evolutionists false assumptions put forth this scientific fact and sputum fed to children on television and in school around the world. Evolutionism is just plain stupid.